WELCH v. GOOD SAMARITAN HOSPITAL

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Suzanne WELCH, et al., appellants, v. GOOD SAMARITAN HOSPITAL, etc., et al., respondents.

Decided: May 24, 1999

SONDRA MILLER, J.P., THOMAS R. SULLIVAN, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ. Mark R. Bower, New York, N.Y., for appellants. Wortman, Fumuso, Kelly, DeVerna & Snyder, L.L.P., Hauppauge, N.Y. (Scott G. Christesen of counsel), for respondents.

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated April 20, 1998, which, inter alia, denied their cross motion to restore the action to the calendar.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

 A party seeking to restore an action which has been dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404 must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the delay in moving to restore the case to the calendar, the existence of a meritorious cause of action, an absence of intent to abandon the action, and lack of prejudice to the nonmoving party.   All four components of the test must be satisfied in order to vacate the dismissal (see, Roland v. Napolitano, 209 A.D.2d 501, 619 N.Y.S.2d 77;  Pellegrino v. St. Agnes Hosp., 216 A.D.2d 447, 628 N.Y.S.2d 540;  Ornstein v. Kentucky Fried Chicken, 121 A.D.2d 610, 611, 503 N.Y.S.2d 643).   Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the required elements, and thus, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs' cross motion to restore the action to the calendar (see, Roland v. Napolitano, supra;  Rodriguez v. Hercules Chem. Co., 228 A.D.2d 319, 644 N.Y.S.2d 229;  Friedberg v. Bay Ridge Orthopedic Assocs., 122 A.D.2d 194, 504 N.Y.S.2d 731).

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Copied to clipboard